[_ Old Earth _] Please watch this video

[Cygnus]

The exact problem I expected Dr Humphrey to skip around happened. He never explains how everything didn't get crushed by the immense gravity that would result in that amount of mass being so near each other. Not to mention on top of that the pure amounts of energy from the stars alone would have immolated the Earth. And once again there is no evidence that this is what happened. Dr. Humphrey just took an idea that could possibly make a young Earth and claimed that is what happened, but there is no evidence of this event. There are tons of problems with his model, the star immolation, massive amounts of gravity that would have ended in a black hole, and zero evidence for it.

Speculative questions....."crushed by the immense gravity that would result in that amount of mass being so near each other." Where did you cut and paste that from?
..."pure amounts of energy from the stars alone would have immolated the Earth." Hows that?

It's going to take a bit more than your speculative assumptions..cut and paste...reply.

 

[Cygnus]

but he avoids explaining what would happen to anything in that immense amount of gravity.

I don't think that's quite what he's saying.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Speculative questions.....

Cygnus, this tells me you don't know anything about physics.

"crushed by the immense gravity that would result in that amount of mass being so near each other." Where did you cut and paste that from?

The Law of gravity. The Dent in his trampoline would be gravity. Gravity in large pockets causes black holes. The pocket he is referring to would be a black hole. Black holes have such immense gravity that they tear apart anything going into them. Cygnus, I also think its weird that you are asking where I copy and pasted that from when you copy and pasted a video.

..."pure amounts of energy from the stars alone would have immolated the Earth." Hows that?

Because if the stars were smooshed together as he is stating in the video, the nuclear reaction alone would have resulted in enough energy to immolate the Earth.

It's going to take a bit more than your speculative assumptions..cut and paste...reply.

First thing you have to do is show me the evidence that this event even happened as Humphrey asserts.

 

[Cygnus]

Because if the stars were smooshed together as he is stating in the video, the nuclear reaction alone would have resulted in enough energy to immolate the Earth.

What do you think the earth looked like on that day?

 

[Milk-Drops]

I don't think that's quite what he's saying.

He said the earth was put into a "timeless zone" and then used a graph to show how the Earth's time slows down the more mass ( gravity) was used to "dent" the trampoline. That is gravity Cygnus, if you say it isn't gravity then that tosses his entire argument out because that is how time is slowed in space and how "dents" form in the "trampoline". Gravity at the scale to cause such a pocket would destroy the Earth.

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus, I also think its weird that you are asking where I copy and pasted that from when you copy and pasted a video.

Sooooooooooo, I should have hired a production crew and made my own video?

 

[Milk-Drops]

What do you think the earth looked like on that day?

It doesn't matter what it looked like, the mass would break down in a black hole. It would be almost pure energy at that point. That would mean the plants from day 3 could not exist.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sooooooooooo, I should have hired a production crew and made my own video?

Never said that :p

 

[Cygnus]

It doesn't matter what it looked like, the mass would break down in a black hole. It would be almost pure energy at that point. That would mean the plants from day 3 could not exist.

Humphreys is talking about the fabric of space and gravatational energy.....you appear to be in a different chapter of your science book.

 

[Cygnus]

Never said that :tongue

It's hard to know just what you said. Yiu cut and paste scientific words and act as if it's so.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Humphreys is talking about the fabric of space and gravatational energy.....you appear to be in a different chapter of your science book.

what you just said is gibberish. The fabric would be the plane everything exists on. To bend space time requires objects with massive amounts of mass that cause immense amounts of gravity. The amount of gravity to reduce time to "timeless would be so massive it would destroy the Earth and everything on it. Also the gravitational energy is what would have ripped the Earth apart. Considering the potential energy in a black hole or pocket (which is what gavitational energy is) would be more than the energy keeping the Earth together.

 

[Milk-Drops]

It's hard to know just what you said. Yiu cut and paste scientific words and act as if it's so.

Nah, I'm not cut and pasting. I just know enough about physics to see that your Dr. Is making things up and ignoring large parts of physics to make his idea "possible".

 

[Barbarian]

huh? It's obvious you don't understand what Humphrey is saying.

It's obvious you don't understand what Humphrey is assuming. You see, in physics, the basic constants are locked together. So if the speed of light changes, so does radioactive decay and many other things. And that would rule out a world of the kind in which we live.

Rock and a hard place.

 

[Cygnus]

It's obvious you don't understand what Humphrey is assuming. You see, in physics, the basic constants are locked together. So if the speed of light changes, so does radioactive decay and many other things. And that would rule out a world of the kind in which we live.

Rock and a hard place.

huh? It's obvious you don't understand what Humphrey is saying.

 

[Edward]

The exact problem I expected Dr Humphrey to skip around happened. He never explains how everything didn't get crushed by the immense gravity that would result in that amount of mass being so near each other. Not to mention on top of that the pure amounts of energy from the stars alone would have immolated the Earth. And once again there is no evidence that this is what happened. Dr. Humphrey just took an idea that could possibly make a young Earth and claimed that is what happened, but there is no evidence of this event. There are tons of problems with his model, the star immolation, massive amounts of gravity that would have ended in a black hole, and zero evidence for it.

No, what he said actually sounded reasonably feasible. It wasn't claimed as fact. This is another theory to be considered is all. So it pretty much ties in with scripture too from what I heard. I've wondered before what all that, stretching out the heavens is about. He kind of explained it. This presentation in the vid is feasible. Even if so, there is still going to be unanswered questions, so I think that to jump on this idea so fast to denounce it is both premature and laughable. Demanding a final answer and absolute proof at this point in the thread makes you guys looks childish. Barbarian didn't even say anything about it. He just said, he's wrong, God said so. That's pretty much what he said! You're not even going to attack the trampoline? Lol...

Tell someone how God did something and the can immediately give you ten reasons why He couldn't do it...

His ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. Maybe He did do it that way?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian didn't even say anything about it. He just said, he's wrong, God said so.

I pointed out one major flaw in Humphrey's belief. It requires either that the speed of light change so drastically that the flux of ionizing radiation (and other constants) would change so much as to preclude life, or that God be deceptive.

Since neither of those is true, his belief is false.

 

[Milk-Drops]

No, what he said actually sounded reasonably feasible.

Except the parts where the gravity would have destroyed the earth. The way how stars would magically have moved faster than the speed of light to get to their current positions, and then ignoring how light years still wouldn't change even if what all he said was true because the light wouldn't be able to magically shoot back to earth for us to see in just 6000 years. He didn't provide evidence for any of what he said, he literally made it up.

It wasn't claimed as fact.

Yes he did. He claimed this is how he thinks it happened and made sure to mention that he had physics principles to back him up. He also wrote a book where he promotes this idea as fact.

This is another theory to be considered is all.

That is the thing. Its not even a theory. Its not based on evidence but merely an assertion.

So it pretty much ties in with scripture too from what I heard. I've wondered before what all that, stretching out the heavens is about. He kind of explained it. This presentation in the vid is feasible. Even if so, there is still going to be unanswered questions, so I think that to jump on this idea so fast to denounce it is both premature and laughable.

No, Edward the reason this can be denounced is because the Dr.'s assertion doesn't work or make sense with the mathematical constants and laws of physics. The field the Dr. says this works in.

Demanding a final answer and absolute proof at this point in the thread makes you guys looks childish.

I have not demanded absolute proof. All I've done is point out how Dr. Humphrey's assertions and ideas ignores problems based on the laws and mathematical constants of physics. He also never showed any evidence for any of the stuff he claimed. If its childish to be skeptical of a claim that doesn't make sense in the field he claims it does, I would be curious to understand what you would consider adult behavior.

Barbarian didn't even say anything about it. He just said, he's wrong, God said so. That's pretty much what he said! You're not even going to attack the trampoline? Lol...

I actually explained why this video is wrong.

Tell someone how God did something and the can immediately give you ten reasons why He couldn't do it...

His ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. Maybe He did do it that way?

My main point is that there has to be a standard to evaluate claims. If there isn't then anything could be claimed.

 

[Cygnus]

No, Edward the reason this can be denounced is because the Dr.'s assertion doesn't work or make sense with the mathematical constants and laws of physics. The field the Dr. says this works in.

With all due respect...the works has been peer reviewed. Which means because you have posted some sort of rebuttal....it's not really trustworthy...especially since you really don't explain why a problem according to you is actually a problem.

 

[Milk-Drops]

With all due respect...the works has been peer reviewed.

Yes, it was peer reviewed and failed. Even among other Christian scientists. Here is one of his peer reviewers explaining why.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time

Which means because you have posted some sort of rebuttal....it's not really trustworthy...especially since you really don't explain why a problem according to you is actually a problem.

Ok, read the article above. It goes into more detail then I can.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes, it was peer reviewed and failed. Even among other Christian scientists. Here is one of his peer reviewers explaining why.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time
Ok, read the article above. It goes into more detail then I can.

You most certainly have to do better than posting articles by biased Theo-Evos.
Hugh Ross seems to be avoiding Humphreys.
Hugh Ross has even been challenged....
So, to be honest.....I really can't accept your link as trustworthy.